Gordon Gibson, OBC, may have a long line of learn-ed political credentials — most recently, or notably, his appointment to run B.C.’s 2003-2004 Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

In greater light, his opinion piece in last Saturday’s Globe and Mail that suggests a win for both the BC New Democratic Party and a proposed Single Transferal Vote system change, appears tainted.

Globe lazy?
For its part, the Globe failed to ensure Gibson’s disclosure as the headmaster (not chair, though of course) of this populist excercise by the BC Liberal government.

Astute readers only may recognize, as a matter of fact only, Gibson was once a senior fellow within the Fraser Institute.

He also sat as a BC Liberal in the provincial legislature back in the days of yore for the then-North Vancouver-Capilano riding. Indeed, he also ran against current B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell for the party leadership in 1993.

These are facts that may not, or may, influence readers’ examination of the piece, but the should have been disclosed.

The ethics of good journalism, in my view, dictate — if not demand — disclosure of any opinion piece authors’ backgrounds.

This makes the Globe, perhaps: lazy; short on copy hole space; and, in any case, culpable of a de facto editorial endorsement of Gibson’s views.

Crediting his views, though
For his part, Gibson uses an array of current public opinion polls to back some solid logic outlining a BC NDP win in 2009, all while he points out valid pitfalls for both the west coast Dippers and the BC Liberal Party:

One thing markedly diminished is the very real fear of the NDP that prevailed when Mr. Campbell first won in 2001. There is nothing frightening about Ms. James. She is a sensible moderate. But yet to be demonstrated is her ability to control some of the old class warriors still to be found in the NDP backrooms.

Big money will still be on the Liberal side but, if anything, that confirms the arrogance/out-of-touch tag. Big unions will still be with the New Democrats, damaging their attempted message of moderation.

In a way, it is B.C. politics as usual – which, in this conservative province, favours the right. But the old “time for a change” urge always grows with the passing years in power.

And Gibson also notes a majority of the voters in 2005 supported a change to BC-STV. Fair enough.

But in lieu of commentary surrounding the 2005 vote — and the Ctitzens’ Assembly — a 2009 opinion piece needs more substance, or a balancing position with regard to the activities leading to the 2005 vote.

The “Assembly” and its stale date mandate
The Elections BC report on the 2005 referendum results notes the following about the assembly’s background:

The Citizens’ Assembly was an independent, non-partisan assembly of citizens composed of 161 members – one man and one woman randomly selected from each of the 79 electoral districts, plus two First Nations members and a chair…

During 2004, the Citizens’ Assembly studied various electoral systems, held public hearings across the province and accepted public submissions. In December 2004, the Citizens’ Assembly released its final report, recommending the province adopt a new voting system; a form of the Single Transferable Vote called BC-STV.

It states the facts, but consider the Assembly’s learning stage lasted between January and March 2004. It learned about electoral systems in three months before holding public meetings and so forth. In-depth college courses on the subject last longer.

(I stated it was populist, but it can be noted that these referenda, along with fixed election dates, move us closer toward American-style “direct democracy” — i.e. idiocracy. But I digress now upon that value claim.)

Indeed, even seeking the meta-meaning beside the reportive definition of an assembly shows evidence of populism PR. It’s easy to imagine 163 “citizens” would work on such responsibility as an “assembly”. One can but find Roman-cum-Westminster-esque power within the phrase, evoking the metaphorical toga verillis and a natural link between proper nouns proper in “Assembly” — that is, between their work and our public legislature.

Then again, it remains possible Gibson was just a lackey in today’s BC Liberal government.

Salient, but tainted
Ultimately, Gibson’s intellect and prose produce salient points; however, his appointment to the exercise about which he comments, and his political past reduce his STV prediction piece into taint — at least at face value.

For the Globe, again, it can supplicate its range of views from missing, necessary disclosure.

Recently:

• The Globe: “Balls”
• Sexual innuendo makes for poor military story headline [writing]
• Public disclosure and MLA pay increases in Richmond: an investigation [finally] reported
• Unspun: a BC Liberal guide to its throne speech
• He’s Gibson the Great, but his ’2009 win for BC-STV and NDP’ piece is too tainted to accept at face value
• Responsible to millions from billions [of dollars], Ballem’s pay may not have changed — much — for new Terminal City post
• Globe goes with hyphen modification(s)?
• One broken neck, but many happy returns. Happy Christmas.
• Holidays ‘pun’ishment
• On the lighter side of nerdom